$1,000 to get your tubes tied?

[Fin]

I used Eugenic principles in picking a mate. Breeding a healthy child was a very important thing on my list of things to do.

Mission accomplished, brother.

Well done, if I may say so.

[Rev.Reverence]

Mission accomplished, brother.

Well done, if I may say so.

Too right Sir..

[Oh_My_Goth]

Mission accomplished, brother.

Well done, if I may say so.

Too right Sir..

:blushing:

[Oh_My_Goth]

This will be harsh, but imo, anyone that fucks without a condom and isn't in a purely monogamous relationship is asking for AIDS, and I never feel one bit of sorry for them.

So after the TL, imo, when it comes to STDs they're on their own. If they get HIV it's their own dumbass fault.

Preach it Sista'.....I feel the same way.....

I think this is a fabulous idea.....

The girls should receive some counseling fist so they can make an educated decision.....& it shouldn't just be an option for poor people.....It should be easier for all women to do this.....

!!!!!WE NEED TO CUT DOWN THIS POPULATION!!!!!

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Even fucking WITH a protection is an issue. I doubt anyone thinks "Well I'll fuck this guy that has AIDS... just need to use protection." Hell no.

[Rev.Reverence]

Even fucking WITH a protection is an issue. I doubt anyone thinks "Well I'll fuck this guy that has AIDS... just need to use protection." Hell no.

[sass_in_the_pants]

Wow, I have to say I'm really surprised at the answers here.

I'm really surprised that it seems that, well, everyone who has answered this, doesn't see anything wrong with eugenics.

I guess it's not okay to suggest blacks, or Jews, or gay men make for bad parents.

But the poor ones, well, that's a foregone conclusion!

It's odd to read that here...to read that somehow it's still okay to try to control the poor.

I guess I thought if any group would be tolerant of people who live differently than everyone else, it would happen here.

Doesn't anybody wonder what's next?

I carry a high risk for breast cancer. Someone with MY particular medical history is likely to have children who will be at a higher risk for cancer. Should I not have children since the particulars of my life will present specific and known challenges to my children?

And let's say this plan works. What next? People on this board believe all sorts of conspiracy theories. Is it THAT far of a stretch of the imagination to see that a volunteer program becomes forced? If a woman will give up her reproductive health for some money, then she CERTAINLY would do it if we withheld her food stamps, right?

Doesn't anybody else see that this would go in that direction?

[eleven]

Wow, I have to say I'm really surprised at the answers here.

I'm really surprised that it seems that, well, everyone who has answered this, doesn't see anything wrong with eugenics.

I guess it's not okay to suggest blacks, or Jews, or gay men make for bad parents.

But the poor ones, well, that's a foregone conclusion!

i dont think that is what it would be at all...i think its a wise decision to help people who want to get it done...seriously. LIke for instance...i dont have insurance and if i didnt want to have children they are going to pay me to get something that i would like to have done than great!

[sass_in_the_pants]

i dont think that is what it would be at all...i think its a wise decision to help people who want to get it done...seriously. LIke for instance...i dont have insurance and if i didnt want to have children they are going to pay me to get something that i would like to have done than great!

But you have to ask yourself WHY would the government want to pay YOU SPECIFICALLY to have a permanent procedure to prevent you from having children.

It's not cuz they're trying to be nice...

And I was thinking about this last night too...why has the offer only been extended to women? If you think about it, the biological ceiling on the number of children a woman could have is what 20, 25? With men, he could sire a new child DAILY! So why are women targeted here?

[eleven]

yea it should be for men too i agree with that...

[Rev.Reverence]

But you have to ask yourself WHY would the government want to pay YOU SPECIFICALLY to have a permanent procedure to prevent you from having children.

It's not cuz they're trying to be nice...

And I was thinking about this last night too...why has the offer only been extended to women? If you think about it, the biological ceiling on the number of children a woman could have is what 20, 25? With men, he could sire a new child DAILY! So why are women targeted here?

Um...re-read the post...they are doing it for men too...

(edit to add)

...& it is only an ideal at this time...

That is what contemplation means..

[Rev.Reverence]

Wow, I have to say I'm really surprised at the answers here.

I'm really surprised that it seems that, well, everyone who has answered this, doesn't see anything wrong with eugenics.

I guess it's not okay to suggest blacks, or Jews, or gay men make for bad parents.

But the poor ones, well, that's a foregone conclusion!

It would seem to me that you let the "evil scientist" type pollute your image of all others who would use the word Eugenics...

...wait, Sass, do you have a kid?

Was it with any old bum off the street?

..OR were you were "picky" when you "chose" a mate?

...you see my point?

[Rev.Reverence]

It's odd to read that here...to read that somehow it's still okay to try to control the poor.

I guess I thought if any group would be tolerant of people who live differently than everyone else, it would happen here.

As I have already stated... it is in the conception stages...

..it is not a forced sterilization program.

..in America..right now...being POOR does NOT make you DIFFERENT.

[Rev.Reverence]

And let's say this plan works. What next? People on this board believe all sorts of conspiracy theories. Is it THAT far of a stretch of the imagination to see that a volunteer program becomes forced? If a woman will give up her reproductive health for some money, then she CERTAINLY would do it if we withheld her food stamps, right?

Doesn't anybody else see that this would go in that direction?

GO HERE...^hehehe

(edit to add)

BELIEVE is an awfully strong word for that subject for me... I prefer, I am willing to "bounce conjecture"... to play what if...

[Oh_My_Goth]

Wow, I have to say I'm really surprised at the answers here.

I'm really surprised that it seems that, well, everyone who has answered this, doesn't see anything wrong with eugenics.

I guess it's not okay to suggest blacks, or Jews, or gay men make for bad parents.

But the poor ones, well, that's a foregone conclusion!

It's odd to read that here...to read that somehow it's still okay to try to control the poor.

I guess I thought if any group would be tolerant of people who live differently than everyone else, it would happen here.

Doesn't anybody wonder what's next?

I carry a high risk for breast cancer. Someone with MY particular medical history is likely to have children who will be at a higher risk for cancer. Should I not have children since the particulars of my life will present specific and known challenges to my children?

And let's say this plan works. What next? People on this board believe all sorts of conspiracy theories. Is it THAT far of a stretch of the imagination to see that a volunteer program becomes forced? If a woman will give up her reproductive health for some money, then she CERTAINLY would do it if we withheld her food stamps, right?

Doesn't anybody else see that this would go in that direction?

I can see you point.....

It is a bit frightening to think of the government having control over what I can & can not do with my body.....

BUT.....We do need to do something about our over population problem.....

& 'culling the herd' so to speak seems like a possible solution.....

Survival of the fittest.....

{Wow.....I sound like a dick}

[taysteewonderbunny]

Wow, I have to say I'm really surprised at the answers here.

I'm really surprised that it seems that, well, everyone who has answered this, doesn't see anything wrong with eugenics.

I guess it's not okay to suggest blacks, or Jews, or gay men make for bad parents.

But the poor ones, well, that's a foregone conclusion!

It's odd to read that here...to read that somehow it's still okay to try to control the poor.

I guess I thought if any group would be tolerant of people who live differently than everyone else, it would happen here.

Doesn't anybody wonder what's next?

I carry a high risk for breast cancer. Someone with MY particular medical history is likely to have children who will be at a higher risk for cancer. Should I not have children since the particulars of my life will present specific and known challenges to my children?

And let's say this plan works. What next? People on this board believe all sorts of conspiracy theories. Is it THAT far of a stretch of the imagination to see that a volunteer program becomes forced? If a woman will give up her reproductive health for some money, then she CERTAINLY would do it if we withheld her food stamps, right?

Doesn't anybody else see that this would go in that direction?

Selective breeding, eugenics: it is terrifying to try to wrestle with two clashing concepts--competitive biology on the one hand, and a belief in the inherent value of every human being on the other. I understand your distaste of eugenics; generally where eugenics is applied, it is people in power making the decisions for all that the population should more resemble those in power. [Granted, rich, lucky people usually have a plethora of self-esteem and consequently like to believe that they got where they did because of some special characteristics of self. People in general believe that the world would be better if more people acted just like them.] It is organized, and it can't help but be exclusive. What I support is what most of us do anyway, whether as biological or moral agents: fuck people we think would make good parents. It works and has worked for thousands of years.

But when public policy picks and chooses from segments of the population on nearly any distinguishing characteristic, someone's rights will be violated. That is why I believe that TL and vasectomies should, as part of a socialized health system, if we ever get one, be a free and legal option to any person who has successfully procreated twice (two live births). Want one before that? The rates are adjusted to your income level, unless 1) if deemed necessary for your own health and survival (then it is free) or 2) if you are convicted of a felony sex crime (mandatory and you pay for it in full regardless of income).

[sass_in_the_pants]

Rev, why'd you have to go and answer me in like three separate posts! Argh!

Um...re-read the post...they are doing it for men too...

(edit to add)

...& it is only an ideal at this time...

That is what contemplation means..

It is, I think a bad idea. They are extending it for men. The original intent was NOT for men.

It would seem to me that you let the "evil scientist" type pollute your image of all others who would use the word Eugenics...

...wait, Sass, do you have a kid?

Was it with any old bum off the street?

..OR were you were "picky" when you "chose" a mate?

...you see my point?

As for evil scientists, the image is not wholly unfounded. Trust me on this one.

My husband...in some circles WOULD be considered a bum.

I see you are saying that people choosing their own mate is eugenics, is that right, is that what you are getting at?

As I have already stated... it is in the conception stages...

..it is not a forced sterilization program.

..in America..right now...being POOR does NOT make you DIFFERENT.

Today it's not. Where's that ninja yellow-face guy when you need him?

And come on, you KNOW that being poor makes you different...I see the poor getting treated badly all the time, in ways that no one of any financial means would get treated.

[Rev.Reverence]

Rev, why'd you have to go and answer me in like three separate posts! Argh!

I'm a dork...

It is, I think a bad idea. They are extending it for men. The original intent was NOT for men.

As for evil scientists, the image is not wholly unfounded. Trust me on this one.

My husband...in some circles WOULD be considered a bum.

I see you are saying that people choosing their own mate is eugenics, is that right, is that what you are getting at?

Fits the definition...

Today it's not. Where's that ninja yellow-face guy when you need him?

And come on, you KNOW that being poor makes you different...I see the poor getting treated badly all the time, in ways that no one of any financial means would get treated.

Yes..being poor can get you treated like shit... but I do not see poor as different... there are plenty of different peoples who are not poor... I see them get treated like shit as well... try being poor & different... then you will start to see my pain.

[pomba gira]

Unfortunately this kind of very useful idea has a bad reputation historically for its very diabolical uses in times past and I'm doubting it has any real chance anytime soon.

Does it seem inhuman or some how "evil" to some? I know it does. But believe me, I'm for it because I care about humanity, and am willing to suffer some of the negative feedback one tends to get that supports this type thing.

There's nothing wrong with eugenics...just some peoples tried to apply it in an un-cool way...& then there were the NAZIS...

I used Eugenic principles in picking a mate. Breeding a healthy child was a very important thing on my list of things to do.

What them said. Eugenics is basically one of those double-edged sword things that has acquired a bad rep by being espoused by some truly evil people. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to, say, breed things like diabetes or sickle cell anemia out of the race.

The early birth control advocates (Margaret Sanger et al) were all eugenicists... and the whole birth control thing seems to have worked out pretty well for all concerned.

[sass_in_the_pants]

I have to disagree.

Once society starts judging who is "fit" and "unfit" the value of every human being is quickly denied.

[Rev.Reverence]

I have to disagree.

Once society starts judging who is "fit" and "unfit" the value of every human being is quickly denied.

You are correct in the point that no man has the right (cosmically) to decide whether or not another may procreate or not...

..however, we as free people can find out from a genetic standpoint, the combination of genes that cause sickle cell for instance, & decide not to breed with some one who possesses the genetic trait(s) that can, combined with yours create another Human with sickle cell... thus bettering the gene pool...

[Goth Brooks]

Does anyone here think this smacks of eugenics?

I'm just speculatin here....

Godwin's Law

Sass, your problem is equating Eugenics with racism. The problem with past eugenics programs was the lack of information on genetics, and the belief that race meant something. Your posts seem to imply that any attempt at eugenics will automatically try to get rid of any non whites.

We have the proof now that people of differing colours are just as similar genetically as those of the same race.

There is nothing wrong with breeding out possibly harmful traits in humans. Humans have been doing it to plants and animals for thousands of years, why is it so wrong to do it with ourselves?

[Simon Bar Sinister]

www.vhemt.org

[Rev.Reverence]

www.vhemt.org

WEIRD...but then..look who's talking..

.

[sass_in_the_pants]

www.vhemt.org

Ah, the self-extinction people. Please notice that they are only urging members to NOT have children, rather than urging them to off themselves. Tougher to get members if they chose that route, I'd imagine.

I like these people. They let me know that the sky is falling WAY WAY WAY before it ever happens.